Is the Lieberman thing the END of the betrayals?

[Ken Burch]

If not, should we even have bothered electing these people?

After this, and the torture sellout, and the Clintonite advisors, can anything still happen in the next four years that can be different from the Dubster?

I want to believe this was worth it. Why are we being dumped on and dissed over and over?

Why should we just quietly put up with this?

We need to get the protests started and defend the victory we won.

A "centrist" four years will be worth nothing.

There's no excuse for them treating the progressive wing like the red-headed stepchild of the party anymore. Our work this year paid ANY possible debts for past defeats.

[Egnever]

1. Torture sellout?

[Ken Burch]

2. Obama's announcement that he won't try our torturers for anything.

It's been all over DU today.

[Egnever]

9. hmm I hadnt seen it

meaning the individual torturers or the white house crew?

[BeFree]

21. I have to ask

Do you have a link to that Obama quote? And not just a link, but a copy and paste verbatim quote that is in the link.

Otherwise I'll have to figure that you are just blowing smoke. Thanks!

[iconicgnom]

3. It's a continuum, and everyone has their place in it.

Over the long haul, Lieberman is inconsequential.

[salguine]

4. "End"!? i was thinking more "enable"..."encourage"...

[Youphemism]

5. We're getting rid of one Avenger-in-Chief. We don't need another.

Getting even with Lieberman would feel great. I'd love to see him get what's coming to him. But it wouldn't do much for me personally. It appears that Lieberman now owes Obama. That could come in handy when it comes time to pass legislation that does affect me.

It's amazing how fast some people turn on a person they've supported. Obama is still two months away from the office and some folks are already whining like children who didn't get every single toy they wanted for Christmas.

Meanwhile, Bush sits there in the White House letting everything go to hell, taking pay for a job he's stopped doing.

Why not spend your energy on that? We'll be lucky if Obama's office isn't repossessed before he gets there.

Let's keep our eye on the ball, instead of trying to place blame for losing the game before the opening kickoff on the guy who called the coin toss

Try to focus.

[Dr Fate]

26. So you think Lieberman will do a good job?

I ask b/c you seem to think that all opposition to him is based on "revenge."

I think he's incompetent and untrustworthy, but hey, maybe he will change in 100% turnaround or something...

Otherwise, I agree with your points.

[Youphemism]

45. I think he'll do a better job as a pathetic twit whose ass was saved than as an enemy...

He's a dickwad. I despise him and I won't defend him. But I will point out that Obama's appeal to spare him is entirely consistent with his campaign platform of being inclusive (even of assholes) and focusing on the goal, rather than the road and the travelers we meet along the way to that goal.

Obama isn't stupid. He knows Lieberman is neither trustworthy nor a friend. But he plans to use friends, enemies, and everything in-between to accomplish what he needs to.

If your goal is to clean out Congress of incompetent, untrustworthy twits, then you'll have to make a much longer list than just a scrap of paper with Lieberman's name on it. But don't expect to get a whole lot done while you're on that crusade.

[Ken Burch]

33. It's not about "revenge" it's about consequences for actions.

Lieberman walked out of that meeting strutting and will never be stopped again.
The message is: party discipline and party loyalty mean nothing.
Doesn't that bother you at all?

[Dr Fate]

35. I can't get anyone to tell me that Joe has done a good job in the past few years.

For me, it's about competence and trustworthiness.

Joe has been too wrong on too many important issues.

[Youphemism]

40. No, you're obviously talking about revenge...

Who cares whether he "strutted" other than a person who's mad at him?

I loathe Lieberman as much as anybody. I hate that he's apparently going to skate through this for now. (His political career is over at the end of his term, of course.)

I really looked forward to seeing him get nailed. But that result has been traded for capital in the agenda of the new administration. I can see why they'd do that.

As far as your performance argument, there are so many Democrats who have been waffling weenies on the democratic agenda far beyond anything Lieberman has done (on votes, not campaigning), but you aren't calling for their ouster. Why not?

Lieberman is a 90% down-the-line democratic ticket voter. I can understand why Obama doesn't want to throw that away under the current conditions in the Senate.

It's clear that you're mad. I totally sympathize with that. But yeah, you're talking revenge, not reason.

[Not a robought]

6. Why vote for republican lite when you can vote for the real deal

is what some will ask in 4 years.

Regarding Lieberman, in case anyone forgot the tale of the frog and the scorpion...

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

[cali]

11. not that hackneyed old chestnut again

I believe that Lieberman has been effectively neutered by Obama. Really, what can he do? He can't start an investigation of Obama on his own. He needs the dems on the Committee to do that. As for Republican lite, there's no point in making that designation when Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

[Not a robought]

12. We'll see n/t

[BzaDem]

7. BS. You knew what Obama was running on a bipartisan, unity platform. You just didn't like it.

And now you are trying to pretend that Obama actually didn't run on such a platform, and is betrying the principles of the platform you claim he ran on.

The truth is, as far as you are concerned, the election was lost when someone much farther left (such as Kucinich) did not win the primary. Until you and others can convince the majority of the Democratic party (and then the majority of the American electorate) that someone like Kucinich should be elected, you have noone but yourselves to blame.

It is not Obama's fault that you didn't like how centrist he is. It is not Obama's fault that anyone much further left didn't even register in the primaries. You can blame the vast majority of the American people for not agreeing with you, but you certainly can't accurately claim Obama is contradicting what he ran on by not throwing Lieberman out or by appointing former Clinton advisors to his administration. It is not Obama's fault if you were purposely trying to turn a blind eye to what he was actually saying during the whole campaign.

Until the "progressive wing" of the Democratic party can successfully nominate and elect a candidate that supports their views much further to the left of Obama's, you can't expect a Democratic president to move in lockstep with your views.

[Ken Burch]

16. Where do you get off putting "progressive wing" in quotation marks?

It's not your place to imply the party doesn't really have such a wing.

This election was NOT a vote to go back to 1992.

[BzaDem]

41. You completely misread what I meant.

I didn't put the progressive wing in quotes to marginalize them. I put it in quotes because I believe you (and others who call this a betrayal) don't actually represent the progressive wing all by yourselves. I believe there are plenty of people who consider themselves progressive but still voted for Obama as their first choice because they want bipartisanship.

[otohara]

46. So Bipartisanship Means

anything goes - anyone, anytime, any place - kumbayah photo ops all around!
Next time Joe Lieberman stabs the democrats in the back and he will....kumbayah will again rule the day.

Yesterday made me physically ill, it wasn't enough they threw the base under the bus, no they had to come out and stand behind that piece of shit Lieberman and nod their heads - I am thoroughly disgusted with the democrats.

I'm done with volunteering - never again!

[BzaDem]

47. No, I think it was a tough decision.

But the choice Obama made is completely consistent with his message. I'm not saying you have to like the message, but most people realize it was completely consistent with his message. Lieberman agrees with Obama on issues much more often than he disagrees, so stripping his chairmanship solely because of partisan concerns would look very partisan.

[otohara]

48. Under The Bus

he thinks more of Joe Lieberman than the millions of activists who worked hard to get him elected. When do we factor into this bipartisanship crap?

[Two Americas]

25. bait and switch

Many people - perhaps not you - said that moving to the right was merely a practical consideration for the purpose of getting elected. They said that once the election was over, that the voices they sought to silence then would be heard and that once in office Obama would move to the left. Now many of those same people are defending moving to the right, and still telling those speaking out for the left to be quiet and accusing them of "disloyalty" when they persist in speaking out.

Smearing and attacking the left is now escalating, rather than decreasing as we were promised by those smearing the left before the election.

In any case, the left versus right divide as being presented by the conservatives within and without the Democratic party is false, and being used to advance an apology for moving to the right disguised as an observation of objective reality.

We have a "left" that takes the opposite point of view from the right wing on culture war issues, on the playing field the right wing propagandists created and control. By switching back and forth between the two definition of the left - cultural and economic - arguments against the left continually change and even contradict each other, as needed to shout down unwanted voices and confuse people.

But historically politics always dealt with issues of power and economics, and by that measurement most of the people here and moist of the people in the country are far to the left of the most dominant people within the party at all levels.

These so-called observations about reality - that the people are center right, that Obama "is" a centrist, that practicality requires that we move to the right - are all cover for an aggressive and disingenuous effort by people to silence the left and move the party to the right.

Were it not for the case that there is a small but very domineering and aggressive faction within the party who secretly WANT the party to move to the right, and who are disguising that, there would not be the endless controversy here about this. People will say "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..." and then go on to attack and disagree.

I don't advocate tossing economic conservatives from the party. However, I do not think they are being honest, and that is causing many problems. They are hiding their promotion of moving to the right behind various "practicality" and "being realistic" arguments, and vicious attacks on any and all ideas that are even slightly to the left and the people daring to express those ideas.

Politicians are not products on a shelf, and we are not consumers selecting from the merchandise. We have a representative democracy, and what politicians do and stand for should reflect the needs and aspirations of the people, not some static and rigid personal qualities of the politician. Obama could safely move far to the left, and as Democrats we should never see that as idealism OVER practicality. We believe that the traditional principles and ideals of the party represent the most practical approach to taking care of the needs of the people and building a stronger society. Otherwise, why be a Democrat?

People who are saying that Obama "is a centrist," and that the politicians must move to the right, are simultaneously trying to bully all voices from the left into silence. This sabotages representative democracy. If the politicians can hear the voice of the people, then they would not have to move to the right and would not "be" centrists. In a representative democracy we have a duty to speak out an influence the politicians, not sit back and live with our choice as though we had made a shopping purchase with a "no return" policy.

I am convinced that those who say that Obama "is a centrist" and that we must move to the right actually desire that we move to the right, and under the guise of describing an existing reality are trying to create and force a desired reality on the rest of us.

[BzaDem]

42. Obama is a centrist. But that in no way says we must move to the right.

Of course, all terms are relative. Relative to many on DU, Obama is a centrist. It is not heresy to point out facts. But that does not mean the party should move further to the right (nor do I think Obama wants to or has any intention of doing that).

Obama is simply executing what his vision was as he explained it during the campaign. If you expected him to change, then it is your fault for expecting something that wasn't realistic, not Obama for simply executing his vision.

[Two Americas]

50. he is a politician

He is not a guru or a religious leader. His job is to represent the people. Saying that he "is" this or that is not very meaningful. FDR "was" a representative of the ruling class and a conservative in his early career, but as president he represented the people and was responsive to their needs.

Saying that people are at "fault for expecting something that wasn't realistic" when they try to lobby for left wing politics IS the way that the party is driven to the right.

There was a time when the Abolition of slavery was unrealistic, and by your standards people should have merely trusted James Buchanan's or Stephen Douglas' vision and kept quiet and not lobbied for Abolition. All social progress started out as "unrealistic." If we adhere to only asking for or speaking about that which is realistic, there will never be any social progress of any kind.

Dictators "execute" their "personal visions" and brook no interference. In a representative democracy, good leaders respond to and represent the people. The people own the government and the politicians work for us. Asking us to remain quiet so a leader can pursue his personal vision without interference from critics is to long for a dictatorship and sabotages and undermines representative democracy.

I would rather risk undermining a ruler who was trying to execute his personal vision through our government then I would risk undermining representative democracy itself.

[maryf]

49. Hear, hear!!

I'd like to k and r this post alone. The gauntlet you have thrown to some more "right" people will unfortunately not be picked up as they are too blind to recognize themselves in your description, or too vain perhaps to admit it to others...

[Zhade]

53. Fantastic post, and deserving of its own thread.

Today's "centrist" is yesterday's conservative.

[Dr Fate]

32. Do you think Joe has done a good job?

That is something I don't see anyone talking about- whether he has actually done a good job as chair and whether he will now do a good job.

I was hoping an Obama admin meant competent, trustworthy people in the top postions- and yes, I did get that from listening to his speeches, etc.

I dont believe that Obama thinks Joe was the best for the job, I believe this was an old-time political deal.

Then again, I could be wrong- maybe Obama has convinced Joe to leave his bitter, pro-Bush partisanship behind.

I hope Joe does a good job, but I admit I have my doubts.

[BzaDem]

44. This is a legislative position -- it's not the same thing.

Obama should appoint people he thinks are the best for the job to executive positions.

But in this case, seniority completely determines the heads of committees in Congress. Going against seniority is only done for extroidinary reasons. Obama did not want to let a personal vendetta prevent seniority from continuing to decide chairmanships.

But Obama will continue to appoint the best and most qualified people to positions that he can appoint them to.

[Two Americas]

51. let's say we did

So what?

What is wrong with "not liking it?"

Before the election we are told "this is the best you can do, so you must vote for the lesser of two evils." In other words, whether or not we "liked" it was irrelevant. We had no choice.

We were also told that after the election we would be free to speak without being attacked and ridiculed. But it is worse now then it was before the election. "Job one! Eyes on the prize! Get the Dems in office! Then we can criticize them!" Apparently the "speak no evil" was not really for the purpose of getting a Dem elected. That was a ruse.

After the election we are now told that making the lesser of two evils choice was not sufficient after all - now we must also LIKE that choice, and must cease seeing it as the lesser of two evils. While we were previously told to support the lesser of two evils whether we liked it or not, now the suppression is greater, not less - now we must not even express dislike!

That is a bait and switch.

[cali]

8. What torture sell out?

And a truly centrist 4 years would be a fuck of a lot better than the right wingnut past o8 years.

For fuck's sake, Obama ran as a centrist. I'm so sick of the stupid shit about how he's betraying us by not being a liberal. Any asshole who voted for him thinking he was deserves every bit of disappointment they're reaping.

Have fun trying to get anyone to protest with you. Aside from a few perpetual loons, it ain't gonna happen unless and until there's something to protest.

[Lasher]

14. AP: Obama Unlikely To Seek Torture Charges

(CBS/AP) President-elect Barack Obama's coming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogation of terrorist suspects during the George W. Bush presidency.

Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.

Two Obama advisers told the Associated Press there is little chance if any that the next president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/politics/main4613023.shtml

I knew all along that Obama was a centrist. I supported him from the beginning in spite of this, not because of it. He was the best alternative, not a perfect one. Just because I supported him it does not follow that I am obliged to approve of everything he does.

But insofar as the Lieberman debacle is concerned, it is the Democratic Senators with whom I am mostly disappointed.

[xxqqqzme]

23. Well, thank god THAT'S

'off the table'! Wouldn't want the world to think we respect the 'rule of law' or anything. This will make it soooo much easier, when, in the future, the next group of fascists steal the government and trash the Constitution.

[PassingFair]

18. He didn't mislead us into thinking he was a liberal....

he mislead us into thinking he was an ALTERNATIVE
to Hillary and the DLC.

Consider me disabused.

[Zhade]

54. Uh, not holding criminals accountable ISN'T something to protest? Really?

NT!

[Lasher]

10. No, this is not the end. Nothing has changed in the Senate.

Lieberman has a lock on the Homeland Security committee for the next two years, just like he's had for the past two.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/bayhs-defense-of-lieberma_n_143863.html

So much for keeping him in line later.

But maybe he's remorseful and promises to change his behavior. Let's see:

Lawmakers who attended the session said that Mr. Lieberman openly discussed the political and personal hurt he had experienced when many of his colleagues campaigned against him after he lost a Democratic Senate primary in 2006 before winning re-election as an independent.

He obviously felt at the time, and still does to this day, that it was wrong of Democratic Senators to have supported the Democratic nominee against him in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.

After the vote, he expressed some remorse for his campaign comments but noted that the resolution did not chastise him directly for backing Mr. McCain, who returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to resume life as a senator.

Trying to find vindication for his actions in some imagined technicality is not a sign that he would not do the same thing again.

Mr. Lieberman, who only eight years ago was the party’s nominee for vice president, said he could have made some statements “more clearly.”

We are left to wonder exactly what he could have been more clear about. Maybe he should have spelled out just what kind of socialist Obama is.

He added: “And there are some that I made that I wish I had not made at all. And obviously in the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us. But I regret that. And now it’s time to move on.”

No. It's not something that just happened to him, it's something he did. And everybody doesn't do it. It would be easier to believe him if we could be sure just exactly what it is that he regrets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19cong.html?bl&ex=1227157200&en=19a61f8eea16eb41&ei=5087%0A

Looks like there will be no change in the Senate. We'll just have more votes to capitulate with. Look forward to hearing a lot from Lieberman for the next 2 years. We have given him the soapbox he craves and you can rest assured there are no strings attached.

[Dr Fate]

30. I have yet to see Lieberman signal that he is willing to leave his bitter partisanship behind him.

I'm not sure he will.

I have no idea why everyone is so sure that leaving Joe to his devices is going to be great thing.

[Lasher]

37. Insanity:

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.

[Danger Mouse]

13. Another person who apparently never really paid attention to Obama's platform.

Sigh.

[BzaDem]

15. He paid attention -- he just tried to ignore some parts so he could be outraged later. n/t

[IndianaJones]

17. you weren't really paying much attention during the past 2 years huh? lmao. nt.

[AlinPA]

19. Did Lieberman go to GA to campaign for Chambliss with McCain?

[EFerrari]

22. No, he's sending Mittens.

:)

[Dr Fate]

28. Why would Joe agree to that? He is on record saying he opposes a DEM majority.

As far as I know, he has not specifically retracted that statement or sentiment.

[demokatgurrl]

20. Not according to another post on this board

where he has said the U.S. would be "hurt" if the Senate had a Dem majority. Does that sound like loyalty to you? To me it sounds like "fuck you, Democrats".

[Dr Fate]

27. I'd love to hear him retract that statement. When is Joe going to leave his partisanship behind?

We all know what Obama and Senate DEMS did in the name of "bi-partisanship" (or should that be tri-partisanship?)...

...but what is Lieberman going to do show that he has put his bitter, Pro-Bush partisanship behind him?

Retracting his outrageous and dishonest statements would be a nice start.

Policitcs is a game of give & take, right?

So what is Joe going to give?

[izzybeans]

24. His defeat in election will be the end.

[Ken Burch]

34. I do hope you mean JOE's defeat.

And it needs to be made clear now that any support of another Lieberman "independent" candidacy after the primary by Democratic senators will NOT be tolerated. Can we all agree that that isn't too much to ask?

[izzybeans]

36. Wasn't that who this thread was about? Lieberman.

On edit: Oh I see. I thought you mean Lieberman's betrayals. Obama hasn't even done anything yet.

[JamesA1102]

29. What betrayals??

Obama promised to be post-partisan and a centerist. He never said he would punish Lieberman or cut anyone that ever served in the Clinton administration out of his.

Don't blame it on Obama if you didn't bother to listen to what he actually said and instead just projected your own hatreds and bias on to him.

[Dr Fate]

31. Obama didn't betray anyone- but I never knew Joe Lieberman's chair was part of the deal.

So far so good- b/c I think that is the only mistake the DEMS have made recently- As long as allowing incompetent and dishonest snakes at top postions is not a trend, I'm cool.

You are right- Obama never said he would "punish" Lieberman- I didn't know that allowing the winning party to replace the opposition was a form of "punishment"- I thought it was just a no hard-feelings change of power...

Did the Rebublicans or Democrats of the past claim they were being "punished" when they lost their chairs when their opposition took over?

I dont think they could have made such a claim, but we frame it that way for Joe's benefit for some reason...

[JamesA1102]

38. Lieberman always cacused with the Dems

So your analogy is incorrect and invalid.

[Dr Fate]

39. And yet he joined the opposition party on the major issues and on the campaign trail.

And he is a member of a Pro-Bush 3rd party- he's not even a DEM by name.

In other words, Joe was NOT part of the "winning party" of this election in any way, shape or form.

Removing an opposing Senator from his chair could have easily been explained as a routine "change of the guard" as opposed to spinning it as "punishment" or "revenge"- that framing only helped Lieberman- which was the point of such framing....

I stand by my analogy- it wasnt all about "punishment" or "bitterness" until the media and pro-Lieberman DEMS made it about that.

Either way, I think Joe has done and will conitinue to do a shitty job in his position- But if I'm proved wrong, that is a good thing...

Do you think he has done a good job in his chairmanship position?

[jzodda]

43. Lieberman didn't betray you

He betrayed Obama and so its between Obama and Lieberman with Reid involved to some degree. If Obama forgave him and wanted him to remain in the party then that's that. I was angry but Obama sets the tone, and when he dropped it as an issue so did I. Since it looks like we may wind up with 59 seats, outside chance at 60 keeping Lieberman is a good idea. He votes with Dems on most issues anyway.

[Zhade]

52. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"the end"

Oh, my aching... heart.

[firedupdem]

55. I was disgusted in 2000 when Bush stole the election, even then

I wasn't completely done with him in 2 weeks! So Obama has failed in 2 weeks, before he's even taken the oath of office? Wow....